Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

> "MT" == Miloslav Trmač writes: MT> For example, right now the easiest way to become a Fedora packager MT> is still to learn RPM packaging (only) and add a new package (which MT> will, by now, fairly often be something obscure with a few hundred MT> of users), That is actually quite untrue

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 9:57 PM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: > The tl;dr summary is that there shouldn't be a single > standard for what we expect of packagers, especially in the context of > what to expect when bugs are filed against their packages on Red Hat's > bugzilla. That's certainly true, with a

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 08:58:04 +0800 Christopher Meng wrote: > Is it possible to add a virtual team for each package(or some > packages with a lot of bugs)? yes, we have done so for a number of places. Currently the 'teams' are just an alias however. Hopefully in pkgdb2.0 we will finally have some

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 09:13:23AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > On 06/18/2013 06:24 AM, David Tardon wrote: > > > >>Agreed but at least they should know how to debug their own > >>components which when I started the how to debug initiative a while > >>back in QA revealed many of them did

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On 06/18/2013 06:24 AM, David Tardon wrote: On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 09:49:37PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: From my point of view If you are not involved with upstream ( at least subscribed to their mailing list and have a account in their upstream tracker ) you should not be maintain

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 03:55:57PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > Because if you cannot properly maintain the component in the > distribution the community is better of without it. > > ... > > Then you should not be maintaining that component > > ... > > We do not need unresponsive or po

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 09:49:37PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > On 06/17/2013 07:57 PM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: > >In my view these expectations imply that a packager has some > >involvement with upstream. I think that the level of involvement is > >going to depend on the packager and the

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

Is it possible to add a virtual team for each package(or some packages with a lot of bugs)? I mean, since upstream may ignore the bugs in bugzilla, we can add a maintainer team like kernel, or a sig like java, to cope with many bugs reported everyday if some programs really have so many. And this

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

Is it possible to add a virtual team for each package(or only some packages with a lot of bugs)? I mean, since upstream may ignore the bugs in bugzilla, we can add a maintainer team like kernel, or a sig like java, to cope with many bugs reported everyday if some programs really have so many. And

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

* "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" [17/06/2013 15:37] : > > This can be solved technically and I have already explain how to do > so in the past at least between two mozilla bugzilla instances and > there was some bugzilla maintainer from Red Hat ( we are not running > our own bugzilla instance so we cannot

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On 06/17/2013 04:49 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > The only difference is that I would add step number five acting as the > liaison between upstream and downstream for reporters which to me is > unavoidable for a packager/maintainer from my pov. +1 I think that this is where a Fedora packag

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On 06/17/2013 07:57 PM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: OK, so this post is going to be rather long and rambling, and hopefully respectful, but I'm passionate about this subject (and Fedora). As am I. The tl;dr summary is that there shouldn't be a single standard for what we expect of packagers, espec

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: > In no way should packagers be expected to provide end-user support for > packages, be an expert in every aspect of a package, or be expected to > work with upstream to debug issues because the end user is unwilling > to do the work themselves

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

OK, so this post is going to be rather long and rambling, and hopefully respectful, but I'm passionate about this subject (and Fedora). The tl;dr summary is that there shouldn't be a single standard for what we expect of packagers, especially in the context of what to expect when bugs are filed ag

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:46:13 -0600 Eric Smith wrote: > Is the source code of the Red Hat Bugzilla instance published > somewhere? A quick search didn't turn it up. On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > It's very close to upstream bugzilla 4.4 at this point I think. Thanks! It

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 18:29:11 + "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > On 06/17/2013 05:19 PM, Haïkel Guémar wrote: > > If using Red Hat Bugzilla instance is the problem, then it's worth > > taking a look at having our own bugtracker. > > In fact, it's already been examined by our awesome infrastruc

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:46:13 -0600 Eric Smith wrote: > Is the source code of the Red Hat Bugzilla instance published > somewhere? A quick search didn't turn it up. It's very close to upstream bugzilla 4.4 at this point I think. I don't know of a public repo of the exact source. kevin sign

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On 06/17/2013 05:19 PM, Haïkel Guémar wrote: If using Red Hat Bugzilla instance is the problem, then it's worth taking a look at having our own bugtracker. In fact, it's already been examined by our awesome infrastructure team and i personnally believe that we should help them fixing that. https:

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On Jun 17, 2013 9:04 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > > On 06/17/2013 01:00 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 4:52 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: >>> >>> >I would like to avoid creating accounts in gazillion upstream bug trackers, >> >> Aha! Should the package maintainers play the

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

Is the source code of the Red Hat Bugzilla instance published somewhere? A quick search didn't turn it up. Eric On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Eric Smith wrote: > Is the source code of the Red Hat Bugzilla instance published > somewhere? A quick search didn't turn it up. > > Eric > > > On M

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

Le 17/06/2013 17:37, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" a écrit : > > No it would not. > > This can be solved technically and I have already explain how to do so > in the past at least between two mozilla bugzilla instances and there > was some bugzilla maintainer from Red Hat ( we are not running our own > b

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 15:55:57 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > Because if you cannot properly maintain the component in the > distribution the community is better of without it. Such rude comments don't meet the "be excellent to eachother" guidelines anymore, I'm afraid. Stop here, please.

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:55 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" < johan...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 06/17/2013 03:42 PM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: > >> 3) Even though I'm an excellent programmer, well versed in C and >> > Python, and decent in Perl, Ruby, et. al. I probably don't have the >> familiarity with

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 15:55 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: [...] In a community of volunteers there are two ways to treat someone's work when you are no satisfied with it: a) tell him/her, his/her work matters and push him/her to improve where you think it should be improved (eventually by

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On 06/17/2013 03:47 PM, Colin Walters wrote: >Maybe you should accept the truth that is instead of accusing others >of lying here. I was not accusing you of lying, merely of perpetuating what I consider an inaccurate characterization of reality. Could the team do more? Of course. Do some Red

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On 06/17/2013 03:42 PM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 7:49 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: It's package maintainers responsibility to act as the liason between upstream and Fedora thus reporters only need to report in our Bugzilla instance. I think that this is a fantasy that

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

* Michael Schwendt [17/06/2013 17:20] : > >But if the original reporter > refuses to join the upstream ticket for answering questions or providing > further details, that can easily become tedious or even a dead end. In the case I'm facing now, the probl

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 15:16 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > > Maybe you should accept the truth that is instead of accusing others > of lying here. I was not accusing you of lying, merely of perpetuating what I consider an inaccurate characterization of reality. Could the team do more?

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 17:29:55 +0200 Michael Scherer wrote: > Le lundi 17 juin 2013 à 10:52 +0200, Florian Weimer a écrit : > > I'm wondering what the current guidelines for filing bugs on > > bugzilla.redhat.com are. > > welcomes > > fi

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 7:49 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > > It's package maintainers responsibility to act as the liason between > upstream and Fedora thus reporters only need to report in our Bugzilla > instance. I think that this is a fantasy that is not going to happen unless every pac

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On 06/17/2013 03:29 PM, Michael Scherer wrote: Le lundi 17 juin 2013 à 10:52 +0200, Florian Weimer a écrit : I'm wondering what the current guidelines for filing bugs on bugzilla.redhat.com are. welcomes filing enhancement requests, but

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

- Original Message - > Am 17.06.2013 15:00, schrieb Orcan Ogetbil: > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 4:52 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> I would like to avoid creating accounts in gazillion upstream bug > >> trackers, > > > > Aha! Should the package maintainers play the middle man in the > > gaz

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

Le lundi 17 juin 2013 à 10:52 +0200, Florian Weimer a écrit : > I'm wondering what the current guidelines for filing bugs on > bugzilla.redhat.com are. > welcomes > filing enhancement requests, but some package maintainers disagree and

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 15:39:30 +0200, Emmanuel Seyman wrote: > * "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" [17/06/2013 12:49] : > > > > It's package maintainers responsibility to act as the liason between > > upstream and Fedora thus reporters only need to report in our > > Bugzilla instance. > > Even when upstream

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

Am 17.06.2013 15:00, schrieb Orcan Ogetbil: > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 4:52 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: >> I would like to avoid creating accounts in gazillion upstream bug trackers, > > Aha! Should the package maintainers play the middle man in the > gazillion upstream bug tracker accounts? This sou

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On 06/17/2013 02:52 PM, Colin Walters wrote: On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 14:34 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: refuse to use our own bug tracker ( Like the Red Hat's Gnome developers do ) Stop saying that, it's not true. What's not true that Red Hat Gnome developers having been trying to push

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 14:34 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > refuse to use our own bug tracker ( Like the Red > Hat's Gnome developers do ) Stop saying that, it's not true. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On 06/17/2013 01:39 PM, Emmanuel Seyman wrote: * "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" [17/06/2013 12:49] : > >It's package maintainers responsibility to act as the liason between >upstream and Fedora thus reporters only need to report in our >Bugzilla instance. Even when upstream has requested that their bu

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

Emmanuel Seyman píše v Po 17. 06. 2013 v 15:39 +0200: > * "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" [17/06/2013 12:49] : > > > > It's package maintainers responsibility to act as the liason between > > upstream and Fedora thus reporters only need to report in our > > Bugzilla instance. > > Even when upstream has re

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > I'm wondering what the current guidelines for filing bugs on > bugzilla.redhat.com are. > welcomes filing > enhancement requests, but some package maintainers disagree and require >

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

* "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" [17/06/2013 12:49] : > > It's package maintainers responsibility to act as the liason between > upstream and Fedora thus reporters only need to report in our > Bugzilla instance. Even when upstream has requested that their bug tracker be the only one used? Emmanuel -- d

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 13:02:04 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > On 06/17/2013 01:00 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 4:52 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> >I would like to avoid creating accounts in gazillion upstream bug > >> >trackers, > > Aha! Should the package maintainer

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On 06/17/2013 01:00 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 4:52 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: >I would like to avoid creating accounts in gazillion upstream bug trackers, Aha! Should the package maintainers play the middle man in the gazillion upstream bug tracker accounts? This sounds ne

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 4:52 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > I would like to avoid creating accounts in gazillion upstream bug trackers, Aha! Should the package maintainers play the middle man in the gazillion upstream bug tracker accounts? This sounds neither very thoughtful nor quite efficient. > s

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On 06/17/2013 12:40 PM, Rex Dieter wrote: Florian Weimer wrote: I would like to avoid creating accounts in gazillion upstream bug trackers, so bugzilla.redhat.com as a single point of contact is very helpful to me. Is the web page I mentioned outdated, or are package maintainers expected to ha

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

Florian Weimer wrote: > I would like to avoid creating accounts in gazillion upstream bug > trackers, so bugzilla.redhat.com as a single point of contact is very > helpful to me. Is the web page I mentioned outdated, or are package > maintainers expected to handle upstream bug tracker interaction

bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

I'm wondering what the current guidelines for filing bugs on bugzilla.redhat.com are. welcomes filing enhancement requests, but some package maintainers disagree and require filing bugs upstream. I would like to avoid creating account